Actor Simon Russell Beale wins licence to thrill?

[katied]

There's always a plothole you could drive through in every Bond film The one in CR doesn't make any sense, and as for QOS-where to start?

[Alessandra]

The old villains and henchmen were more intimidating. The last two villains are not worth mentioning, not worth remembering really.

The property of a lady stuff with Weisz being Quantum's Blofeld or directly working for Blofeld, some places are going on about a female villain to match wits with Bond. I think one of the most effective villains and one of the must under the radar villains was Elektra King in TWINE. Her henchman was misidentified as the mastermind, TND the Stamper and Dr Creepy were good Henchmen the main bad guy I felt watching it was a menace who need to be stopped. The new bad guys I feel if they happen to lose their Asthma inhaler it's all over. The henchmen are only slightly dumber then Bond charging around killing people.

I agree Elektra worked well as a villain, and agreed about TND. Thing is, they can't cast decent actors for the part because they save money on the cast to spend it on action (but then it doesn't show on screen, since with QoS you can't even freaking tell what goes on in action scenes), and on top of that they hire AWFULLY wrong writers (and I don't mean Purvis & Wade but those who REVISED what they did and changed it). Oscar nomination or buzz means NOTHING when you need to pen a freaking action movie. I don't think JJ Abrams EVER was nominated for his movies (Or maybe he was for Mission:Impossible, I can't remember now) but for Heaven's Sakes he KNOWS how the hell to handle an action movie, and he knows how to make it great! Just like he knows how to create brilliant TV series and how to cast the PERFECT people for roles. Not coincidentally all his successful projects (Alias, Lost, Star Trek new movies) were completely spot-on for casting. I'm curious to see how "Alcatraz", his new TV series for next season, works. So far it sounds great.

As far as the bad guys, the can't write one now. They just can't. Both for CR and for QoS they were just laughable. The premise was laughable too, what with Bolivian water? SERIOUSLY? And to think, it is very simple. There's always TWO things combined behind a good villain: POWER AND MONEY. Where is the power angle here? Oh right, nowhere in sight. And even the money one is pretty d**n weak. It's not that difficult to write a decent villain, but when you get lost in nonsensical "soul searching" for a character like James Bond, who isn't supposed to do ANY of that in an evident way, and you make him act like a pouting scorned boyfriend, well you can't really expect much from villains.

I think that's one of the things that irks me the most... Bond is a pouting scorned boyfriend and acts because of that first and foremost. Really? It was over at "The bitch is dead". Get over it and give me some actual James Bond, because the guy in the novel Casino Royale sure looked, behaved and talked NOTHING like Daniel Craig's Bond.

Now, it seems like this particular Beale rumour suddenly died? I haven't seen any more mention of it and if he was so close to being cast, why is there zero talk about it? I hate all of the spec, I really do. Except the certain news (Mendes directing, Craig starring) are even worse

What I liked about Dalton's (and Brosnan's) Bond is yes he was violent but he was a thinker, refined and ready to meet violence with violence as a last resort. Craig's Bond seems to do his thinking while smashing and resorts first to violence. Not saying that is Craig fault but it is strange to make Bond more about nothing than he was, the Bond of recent memory had a lot of action and stunt work but also a reason for why everything happens. CR we don't know why Bond's life is spared it seems to contradict the interest of Quantum, if the object was to turn Bond why not have the agent Vesper stage mock escape and get the d**n numbers as she did later. With an agent already next to Bond the whole kidnapping plot makes no sense. I am not even going to justify QOS by writing about all the stuff in it that didn't make sense or why cast a man who looks old enough to have retired from the post office as a newly minted 00 agent.

I rewatched Dr No last night. I so love it, I can't even BEGIN to explain where the many problems I have with Craig and his Bond compared begin. That was Sir Sean's debut, and YET he definitely looked A)refined B)stylish C)competent D)witty E)badass ONLY when needed F)charming G) irresistible with women. They made it clear he is a man of habit and very precise taste when it comes to his own life, GUN included. The list goes on and on... they definitely established a SUPER refined environment for Bond right there. He knows his clothes, his food, his drinks, his ART PERFECTLY. Craig's Bond wouldn't recognise a Monet if he smashed his face against it (which, he probably would, he'd then use it to smash upon some villain's head ) Wanna do rookie Bond? Well then he sure as hell shouldn't look 50 while being 40, and while not knowing EVERYTHING he would STILL know something and definitely have his core as a STYLISH human being, not as the Incredible Hulk who doesn't even know the difference between a shaken and a stirred Vodka Martini! (I will NEVER get over that crappy idiotic line, it was a slap in the face to WHAT BOND IS, and it was unjustified even with Bond as a rookie. What the hell.)